RE: Comments on WS-Internationalization working draft

These are all good comments. Some stem from the fact that this document's source is quite old (WS-Routing was new when this was written and my attempts to clean up the references wasn't that thorough).

We should incorporate many of these comments as part of our next round of work.

Addison

Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group

Internationalization is not a feature.
It is an architecture. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-i18n-core-request@w3.org [mailto:public-i18n-core-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Mary Trumble
> Sent: dimanche 25 septembre 2005 23:28
> To: public-i18n-core@w3.org
> Subject: Comments on WS-Internationalization working draft
> 
> 
> Here are some comments that I received from an IBM reviewer of the
> document.
> 
> Chris Ferris' comments:
> 
>    There is no normative (or non-normative for that matter) reference to
>    SOAP or WSDL. Is there a reason for this? I think that the spec should
>    try to provide a binding to both SOAP1.1 (possibly non-normative) and
>    SOAP1.2 as well as to both WSDL1.1 and WSDL2.0 so as to be most
>    practically useful given that at present, SOAP1.1 is most commonly used
>    for interoperability and that WSDL2.0 may endure a rather protracted
>    roll-out given its complexity, and also given that MSFT seems
>    dis-inclined to target its adoption for Longhorn.
>    It references WS-Routing, yet the actual reference in the references
>    section is to the W3C WS-Addressing specification. WS-Routing is
> defunct
>    as far as the set of WS-* specs is concerned.
>    Secondly, there seems only to be a mapping to WSDL2.0 features and
>    properties. IBM (amongst others) doesn't support the F&P aspect of
>    WSDL2.0 [2]. Basically, it directly competes with WS-Policy.
>    IMO, the spec should be leveraging the SOAP1.2 soap:relay attribute [3]
>    and should use the http://www.w3.org/2003/05/soap-envelope/role/next
>    role for i18n processing to achieve the desired effect (or so I would
>    imagine) of having all processing on the message be performed using the
>    desired locale. At the very least, this should probably be recommended
>    by the spec.
>    I'm a little concerned about the use of the "$" for certain of the
>    values e.g. <locale>$default</locale>. My concern is that with certain
>    scripting environments such as PHP, that it may be confused with
>    variable substitution and will require escaping. I guess I don't
>    understand why the value space for the locale isn't a URI.
>    I think the spec needs a little more specificity with regards to the
>    content model of the <i18n:international> element. Specifically, it
>    should be described using XML Schema (IMO) and also should probably be
>    described in terms of the infoset... similar to the way that SOAP's
>    elements and attributes are defined in the SOAP1.2 spec.
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------
> Mary K. Trumble
> Tel: (512) 838-0094; T/L 678-0094
> mtrumble@us.ibm.com
>

Received on Monday, 26 September 2005 15:12:50 UTC